Sexual behaviours and the risk of head and neck cancers: a pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual contact may be the means by which head and neck cancer patients are exposed to human papillomavirus (HPV). METHODS: We undertook a pooled analysis of four population-based and four hospital-based case-control studies from the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) consortium, with participants from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, India, Italy, Spain, Poland, Puerto Rico, Russia and the USA. The study included 5642 head and neck cancer cases and 6069 controls. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) of associations between cancer and specific sexual behaviours, including practice of oral sex, number of lifetime sexual partners and oral sex partners, age at sexual debut, a history of same-sex contact and a history of oral-anal contact. Findings were stratified by sex and disease subsite. RESULTS: Cancer of the oropharynx was associated with having a history of six or more lifetime sexual partners [OR = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01, 1.54] and four or more lifetime oral sex partners (OR = 2.25, 95% CI 1.42, 3.58). Cancer of the tonsil was associated with four or more lifetime oral sex partners (OR = 3.36, 95 % CI 1.32, 8.53), and, among men, with ever having oral sex (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.09, 2.33) and with an earlier age at sexual debut (OR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.37, 5.05). Cancer of the base of the tongue was associated with ever having oral sex among women (OR = 4.32, 95% CI 1.06, 17.6), having two sexual partners in comparison with only one (OR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.19, 3.46) and, among men, with a history of same-sex sexual contact (OR = 8.89, 95% CI 2.14, 36.8). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual behaviours are associated with cancer risk at the head and neck cancer subsites that have previously been associated with HPV infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".